has anyone made a pair of Chasseure trousers

[nelson998]

Still working on a CW Zouave uniform and have moved to the trousers.

I have drafted a pattern, using a Schuylkill arsenal pattern as a starting point, but am not sure I am going in the right direction. The original trousers have eight 3/4 inch pleats per panel, which adds 12 inches to the waistband as cut. Since the trousers are very full I just added the 12 inches to the legs. This gives a pretty large piece of material for a panel. I am going to cut some cheap material as a test first, but even before I get there does it sound like I am on the right track or am I headed to a cliff.
 
Thanks for any input.

Norm Nelson

[Jim_Ruley]

Hi Norm,

Did you add to the waistband piece, or the waist seam line?  The waistband piece remains at your waist size and retains the pleats in place.

If all the pleats are in front, then yes you need to add 12 inches to each trouser front at the waist line.  If the pleats are half in front and half in back, you need to add six inches width to each piece.

How is the extra width handled at the cuff - are the trousers tapered, or gathered into a band?

Getting this right may take a couple of tries, so by all means make mockups.

Hope this helps,

Jim Ruley

[nelson998]

Thanks for the help!

The waistband does remain the same, although it needed to be changed as the width of the front and rear are different than the standard trousers, and in fact widens as it goes from front to back. Originals show a top stitch along the pleats, below the waistband,  in addition to waistband stitching and an additional to stitch along the  bottom of the waistband after it is turned up.

The additional 12 inches is in  each panel, making for 48 inches of extra material and a total of 32 pleats. I will do each panel separately as the first pair of Zouave pantaloons I did the pleating after construction of the leg bags making a lot of extra work.

The trousers then  gather into a band at the bottom, which is right below the knee. There may be some tapering of the leg as well.

There is also a large pentagon shaped yoke at the rear that takes part of the pleating.

I have pretty good photos to go by as well as a few measurements done in an examination of an extant pair.  Otherwise it is extrapolations and trial and error.

I'll let you know how they come along, and if I figure out how to post the photos eventually can show the finished product.

[Jim_Ruley]

Originals show a top stitch along the pleats, below the waistband,  in addition to waistband stitching and an additional to stitch along the  bottom of the waistband after it is turned up.

Sounds like maybe this is intended to secure the waistband interfacing after the waist seam is pressed open?  Were you able to see these details on the originals?

The additional 12 inches is in  each panel, making for 48 inches of extra material and a total of 32 pleats.

That's some baggy trousers!

There is also a large pentagon shaped yoke at the rear that takes part of the pleating.

This is probably typical cloth-saving pieceing.  Yokes of various shapes and sizes are commonly seen in the sloping upper back area of all kinds of trousers.  If you are cutting several pairs of trousers from the same piece of cloth, you can save material by cutting the back tops straight across (fully or partially) and cutting the triangle pieces separately.  I suspect some of the gussets in the inseams at the crotch were done for the same reason, or because the trouser fabric was narrow; though this is also an alteration to correct tightness in the seat and thighs.

Thanks,

Jim R.

[nelson998]

My sources were Heritage Auction site, which has some incredible high resolution photos of a uniform issued in April 1865, as well as CJ Daley's research site on the 146th uniform at Gettysburg NMP.  The description and photos show the top stitching quite well.There are one or two more in private collections which I had no access to in any form.

The baggy  trousers are very similar to Zouave pantaloons. You can tell that there are separate legs, but when standing for photos the baggy nature is apparent.

The yoke is very similar to JT Martin 's pentagon yokes, but seem to be larger. They are the same size and are cut into the rear panel. Also this is done the same on both pairs that I studied the photos for. Both specimens appear to be the same size  and have approximately the same number of pleats encompassing them. Also it looks as if the rear  trouser panel is higher because it is not using the triangular yoke of the normal trousers.

I could post the two sites but wasn't sure if that was proper.

Thanks agin,
Norm Nelson

[Sewing Heap]

Hi Norm, I have been meaning to post on your 146th threads. I have handled and original coat and fez of theirs, the trousers I handled for our reproductions were from the 83rd.

With the trousers specifically, the extra 12" or so is about right. The trousers I measured were very small, about 28" waist. At that small size, the extra volume creates a unique fit for smaller people. When people get larger the pants do not loom as full. (as seen on reenactors, and original soldiers.) What we have done is scale up the pleates to match the waist band. Larger pleates = more volume = more fabric used.

There is piecing on the lower leg of the 83rd trousers, but not on the 146th. The legs taper drastically but still have a small gather into the cuff band.

The pockets are square and are set into the exact side seam.  We copied pockets from an original pair 5th NY trousers we studied.

Back of the French import trousers. The measurments of the waist band, pleates, ect are very very close to the Smith trousers

 http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/431583_10150547190191666_682601665_9111664_1677988243_n.jpg

Cuff band details...gathering. Same top stitching more or less.

 http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/394077_10150547184871666_682601665_9111653_1269333488_n.jpg


Cuff piecing I mentioned with gathering into the cuff. The 146th didn't piece their cuffs like this.

 http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/395519_10150547188096666_682601665_9111660_1369143494_n.jpg

[Gary Dombrowski]

I sure wish Norm would pop in here to talk about his 145th project.   ~Gary

[nelson998]

Well I fell off the face of the  earth for a bit to which I apologize missing those that picked up the thread.

Well that and the fact that I have the attention span of a newt sometimes.

Any idea when the 83rd trousers that you examined were issued? The 146th uniforms that I am aware of alll seem to have been issued not long before they mustered out, and the troops were given the option of buying their kit for $6.00 so that helped to preserve really nice examples.

I have finished the trousers  but may need some modifications with the information on the 83rd trousers. I used a lot of original photos from the 146th Regimental that Pat Schroeder republished, as well as the high res sources mentioned earlier and CJ Dailey fine work. There seems to be a major difference in the fullness of the  earlier issue as opposed to the last issue after Appomattox.  Therefore the pants that I made do not taper as much as the later that are still in extent.

The pockets were a problem since I had not done the type before. The Zouave pants, 5th NY that I made early in this adventure,  had regular pocket bags set into the front piece. For the 146th I have them equally spaced front and rear panel.

These were again entirely hand sewn.  Unlike the earlier Zouave trousers I pleated the panels before constructing the trousers. This made for far easier construction, although numerous pin pricks while stitching the pleats.

I will again try and post the pics later.

Norm Nelson

[nelson998]

This is the back placket that was giving me so much trouble, as in find/figuring out the size. There is a belt back as well that didn't show in the photo.


Right interior pocket detail, with watch pocket. The waistband lining on the pair described by CJ Daily in the Gettysburg collection is how I came up with the wide lining.


Front detail.  There should be a button at the top of the waist band that was non functional on the pants. Possibly for a vest that was not issued.

The pants are  heavy in that there is truly a majority of two full yards of 22 ounce 6/4 cloth. I figured that the braces would pull the buttons off without the reinforcements. The belt back may take some of the strain and they  are normally worn with a ten foot by on foot sash wrapped around the top.


Cuff detail. Trousers are very full in the cuff and I may go back and thin/taper down some. The difference in material is that I ran out of sky blue kersey, Charlie Childs, and ended up using some Wambaugh and White for the band. A friend commented on it but I don't think that anyone would have batted an eye in 1863.

Norm Nelson

[Gary Dombrowski]

Norm, The uniforms were issued on June 3, 1863 (if memory serves me right) and saw service through the remainder of the war. ~Gary

[nelson998]

Gary,
Thanks for the quick reply.

The problem with CW is that they didn't date them so that we later nerds would know the answers to questions that they never even considered. And unless the clothing is identified to a particular soldier and the discharge or death date is known we are at a loss.

I had a discussion with Pat Schroeder, one of the leading Zouave historians,  about how many different issues of clothing the unit, 146th, received of the turco style uniform. I don't that they received the five or so that they would have been entitled to under regulations, but the did have at least two and more likely more than that. The June issue after Chancellorsville, and the last after Appomattox are the only two that I have actually been able to document.

There is a definite difference in the volume of cloth used between the first issue, the ones most heavily photographed, and the last issue which has the most surviving examples. It seems the Schuylkill Arsenal was doing that with all the Zouave uniforms being produced.

Manly mind exercises though. We worry about all the things that people then wouldn't have dreamed of. As long as the uniform covered their behind, what did the Minor details that we agonize over matter.

Norm Nelson